Sitting in a moving motor vehicle, Ward 14 Councillor Mike Spadafora attended Wednesday’s Hamilton City Council development charges appeal hearing by mobile device video link.
Spadafora stated he was not operating the motor vehicle.
TPR was present in the meeting room, and recorded Spadafora’s video feed as it appeared in the meeting room.
The meeting began later than the originally scheduled 9:30 a.m. start time. Originally postponed to 11:00 a.m., councillors failed to have quorum and had to wait until just before 11:10 a.m. when Spadafora joined.
On time were Councillors Brad Clark, Jeff Beattie, Mark Tadeson, and Alex Wilson.
Absent were Councillors Maureen Wilson, Cameron Kroetsch, and Tammy Hwang. Kroetsch and Hwang are in Ottawa for the Association of Ontario Municipalities conference.
YouTube Videos
Spadafora’s video feed shows him in a motor vehicle.
He is looking around him and, at times, glances towards his mobile device camera. A few minutes into the meeting, he turns on a background image. [Link to video 1 on YouTube.]
Light changes on his shift indicate the vehicle is moving. Spadafora is wearing a seat belt. [Link to video 2 on YouTube.]
Later he gets out of the vehicle. [Link to video 3 on YouTube.]
He returns to the vehicle shortly after, remaining for the rest of the meeting.
$455,943.12 DC Appeal Hearing
Council’s Audit, Finance, and Administration Committee held a special meeting to deliberate on a development charges appeal regarding a retroactive charge of $455,943.12.
Councillors ultimately decided to rule in favour of the appeal, finding the appellant could not be retroactively charged when City of Hamilton staff failed to notify them of the charges. The appellant is not responsible for the staff error.
In January 2023, the City issued a building permit to renovate a former Spencer Valley School, now a private school, after OneSchool Global purchased the building.
The renovation did not expand the building, did not increase density of use, and included a fundraising “tuck shop.”
When the City issued the building permits, and all other approvals, it did not levy development charges, nor did it notify that any DCs applied.
On March 15, 2024, the City of Hamilton issued a bill for the development charges. The appellant states the City told them it had ‘missed’ issuing the charge.
This was the first time the appellant was informed their renovation would be charged development charges.
They appealled on multiple grounds. These include there is no expansion or intensification of the existing use – that it is not a new development, and that the City cannot retroactively impose development charges.
City Councillors were given over 100 pages of evidence. The evidence is not available on the City website.
The City of Hamilton hired an outside lawyer to handle the case on staff’s behalf.
Bruce Engell, of WeirFoulds, argued converting the building from a public school to a private school operation constitutes a “change of use” and triggers development charges.
He stated the City’s Development Charges Bylaw does not provide exceptions for staff error.
“It is unfortunate, it is not desirable… but it will happen from time to time,” Engell stated.
The City argued that bodies applying for building permits are required to inquire about development charges, and the City is not obligated to inform applicants about the charges it will levy.
Spadafora Not Focused on the Meeting
Throughout the meeting, Spadafora’s head was routinely looking in various directions.
As lawyer Jennifer Meader made oral arguments on behalf of OneSchool Global, Spadafora’s attention was diverted multiple times.
He enters and exits the motor vehicle, puts down his phone a few times, and looks in various directions as lighting and shadows on his shirt indicate the motor vehicle is moving.
He conversed with at least one other person when he was required by the Statutory Powers Procedures Act and the Development Charges Act to be entirely focused while serving in a quasi-judicial decision-making role.
Near the end of the meeting, as Meader provided oral reply evidence, Spadafora was again in his vehicle, consuming food, looking in various directions, and dropping out of the camera frame numerous times.
[Link to YouTube video of Spadafora during a portion of the closing arguments]
The meeting began at 11:15 a.m., later than the original 9:30 a.m. public notice start time.
Council adjourned shortly before 3:30 p.m.
The full video of the meeting, as streamed by the City of Hamilton, is on YouTube here.
(Note: the City of Hamilton has “unlisted” the meeting video. TPR recorded the livestream and a permanent YouTube link is available here: https://youtu.be/xOuY40Vck4M)
Production Details v. 1.1.1 Published: August 21, 2024 Last updated: August 22, 2024 Author: Joey Coleman Update Record v. 1.0.0 original version v. 1.1.0 August 21, 2024 CORRECTION: Only two of the three councillors absent today are at AMO conference. The original version of this story incorrected stated all three were. I regret the error. v. 1.1.1 August 21, 2024 added a new YouTube link in case City of Hamilton removes original video
This is what someone trying to give away the appeal does.
He isn’t serious about his role as a city councillor.
He continues to wish he was an MP or MPP for the conservatives.
He adds nothing to the equation.
Let’s hope he gives up his seat to unsuccessfully run for higher office and lose so we don’t hear from him for a bit.